Globalization and the Revolutionary Imperative Part II - Chapter 5 - preliminary Copyright 1998 by Richard K. Moore 26 September 1998 - 5780 words book maintained at: http://cyberjournal.org/cadre/gri/gri.html ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Part II - Envisioning a livable world: common sense, not utopianism ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 5 - Democracy: collaboration and harmonization instead of competition and factionalism ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- What is democracy? -- a functional definition ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Democracy is, to put it mildly, an overused word. In the parlance of neoliberal globalization, democracy is equated with laissez-faire capitalism, as in democratic market reforms. In more general parlance, democracy is typically equated with multi-party elections, and for that reason Western nations are generally referred to as democracies -- even though citizen satisfaction is generally poor and steadily declining. For our purposes -- envisioning a livable world -- we need a functional definition of democracy: democracy is not a mechanism; democracy is a result. If people generally believe that they are involved in their society's governance, that their concerns matter, and that society is serving their interests as well as can be expected, then that would be strong evidence for a functioning democracy. If people are more inclined to say that government doesn't listen to them, and avoid political participation out of impotent apathy, that is strong evidence that democracy is absent. Such a citizens' test would not certify very many Western nations as being democratic. Any formal system, whether it be elections, political parties, or constitutions, can be corrupted and subverted. I have argued in earlier chapters that Western democratic institutions have in fact been corrupted by capitalism and that effective power has become concentrated in the hands of an elite oligarchy. I further argued that Western republics were set up intentionally to favor established wealthy interests over popular interests. In a functional survey of modern nations, I submit, the West would show up in the oligarchy column, not the democracy column. In this chapter we will look more closely at Western political systems, and try to identify why they do not lead to functional democracy. We will also at other models of governance, ask how they pass the "citizens' test", and see what they may have to offer us. My goal in this investigation is to develop enough insight into the dynamics of political systems so that we can begin to get a feeling for how robust democracy might be achieved in modern societies. Recall from the previous chapter: If livable societies are to be achieved and sustained, the most fundamental requirement is that stable, locally-based, democratic governance be established. Only democracy is based on popular will, only stable democracy can maintain social well being in a dynamic society, and only locally-based democracy can adjust to local requirements. Competitive factionalism -- a failed paradigm ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ There is a rationale for Western political systems, a theory by which they are supposed to work and achieve a rough-and-tumble version of democracy. The theory is that political parties will arise which represent various popular interests, and that by choosing among those parties people will be able to express their preferences. Competition among parties, the theory goes, will ultimately result in government agendas which reflect majority sentiments. In looking at how these systems work in practice, it becomes clear that they fail to live up to the theory at every single phase of their operations. The leading parties in the West are dominated by wealthy interests, and in recent years the policies of most major parties have converged into a single stream: corporate globalization. Little real choice is offered to the voters. Citizen preference itself has become generally meaningless because public information and debate are controlled by corporate-owned media. Elections, instead of being a way for policy priorities to be determined by voters, have become instead a way for corporate-beholden candidates to be sold to the electorate by sophisticated advertising campaigns. Such are the mechanisms of oligarchic rule in a paper democracy. There are so many things wrong with these political systems that a strong case can be made for reform almost anywhere you want to look. There are hundreds of citizen groups and organizations in the West pushing for reform of media, of campaign financing, or of corporate lobbying. There are groups pushing for proportional representation, others for minor political parties, and others who want everyone wired into some kind of online system of electronic "direct-democracy". The problem with such reformist approaches is that even if they were implemented, we would still be left with only a rough-and-tumble democracy, a competitive democracy based on factional politics. In what follows, I will endeavor to establish that competitive politics is itself incompatible with functional democracy. Rather than being aberrations, the various corruptions plaguing Western political systems are inherent in those systems. Already in the classical Roman Republic, before Roman Emperors arose, most of the modern Western corruptions could already be seen. Election districts were rigged to favor wealthy interests, and huge fortunes were typically expended in carrying out political campaigns. Roman politics evolved from republican democracy, to oligarchy via corruption, to direct rule by an Emperor. As we have seen in previous chapters, this same pattern is now being played out globally, with corporate bureaucracies (IMF etc) instead of the Emperor and his court, US and NATO elite forces instead of the Roman Legions, and television instead of circuses. Competitive politics, by its very nature, invites corruption. The goal of a political party, or faction, is to win power, and politics becomes a competition for power among societal factions. Alliances-of-convenience are formed to achieve majorities, and a politician class arises which is skilled at making deals and running election campaigns -- the game of politics becomes the game of power brokering. Wealthy interests would then be blind not to see the opportunities available from buying into the power game, concentrated as it is in the hands of power brokers and politicians, thereby gaining control over society's policy agenda. A political system based on factional competition ideally suits the purposes of the best-organized and best-funded faction, and the faction with the best access to media: the elite oligarchy. Even if some magical means were available by which such corruptions could be prevented, competitive politics would still be an unsound basis for functional democracy. If a majority can dictate policy to a minority, and ignore the interests of that minority, then a significant portion of the society, at any given time, is effectively disenfranchised. In a functional democracy, people generally, not just some temporary majority, must feel that society is responsive to their interests. From a societal perspective, the purpose of politics is to adjudicate among interests and to provide a mechanism by which societal decisions can be made and societal problems solved. In a functional democracy, the adjudication process must be inclusive; it must involve the harmonization of interests, not the defeat of one by another. As any modern organizational consultant will readily tell you, a "win-lose" approach to business, or negotiations of any kind, is not as productive as a "win-win" approach. Overall benefit is greatest when the interests of all parties are served by an agreement or a contract. Just as business practices provided useful models for sustainability, so do organizational practices provide useful models for democracy: a win-win (inclusive) approach provides the most overall benefit. Only with an inclusive political process, which harmonizes among diverse interests, can a functional democracy be achieved. Only then can the societal problem-solving process take into account the interests of citizens generally. Ultimately the goal of politics is to enable societal problem solving. In a functional democracy the problem-solving process must be informed by the full range of societal interests. A profound paradigm shift occurs when you start thinking about politics as a problem solving process rather than a power competition. Any good corporate manager will tell you that problems are best solved when all viewpoints are carefully listened to. Often an unpopular minority view reveals problems that are critical to the success or failure of an endeavor. A competitive political paradigm suppresses minority views; a problem-solving paradigm welcomes minority participation. The contrast between the paradigms of problem-solving and power-competition can be best understood in microcosm, by comparing the processes of decision-making meetings in Western politics with those in modern corporations. The paradigm for political decision-making meetings is based on competitive factionalism, and is embodied in Robert's famous Rules of Order. Discussion continues, under these rules, until some faction feels that it has assembled a majority for its side. A vote is then called, and if a majority assents, the matter is settled and debate is ended. There is no incentive to pursue harmonization of interests beyond that which is required to achieve a majority block. And there is no incentive to listen to minority views at all. The failures of Western democracy can be already seen in the process of a typical meeting, as it might occur in a municipal council hall or on the floor of the US Congress. The competitive system, from bottom to top -- from meetings to elections -- is simply poor at solving societal problems. It merely provides a forum in which factions can battle over previously-determined partisan agendas. The paradigm for a decision-making meeting in a modern corporation is one of collaborative problem solving. A good manager listens to all views, attempts to harmonize conflicts, and seeks a solution that everyone can support. Corporations are in the end hierarchical, and the manager may make the final decision, even if it's unpopular -- but at least he or she, if competent, will listen to all views and seek consensus wherever achievable: that makes for a more effective team. Important work gets done at such a meeting; human creativity is exercised for collective goals; effective problem-solving is accomplished in pursuit of agreed objectives. Functional democracy, I suggest, must be based on a problem-solving paradigm rather than on competition and factionalism. Once again, sound business practices provide better societal models than do traditional Western political practices. This should really be no surprise: in our capitalist societies businesses are expected to operate effectively, while governments are set up to be subverted. Centralism vs. localism ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Another essential flaw in Western democratic systems is centralism. By centralism I refer to two characteristics: (1) the making of most significant societal decisions at the center -- in the society-wide governing body, and (2) the failure of politicians to represent the interests of the constituencies that elected them. In Western societies, parliaments and congresses have nearly unlimited power to make micro decisions for all levels of society, and the elected delegates are only nominally obligated to represent the interests of their constituencies -- in fact delegates generally represent the interests of party politics and of the corporate community, which dominates campaign funding. To survive in politics, a politician must get elected. What this means in today's world is Can the politician be sold to the constituency at election time? Achieving an affirmative answer to this question has much more to do with campaign funding and favorable coverage by media, than it has to do with the voting record of the candidate. The career imperative of a successful politician in the West is clear: serve the interests of the oligarchy, which has unlimited funding and media access available as needed. Both characteristics of centralism are inherently counter-democratic, according to our functional definition. By making most decisions at the center, popular will is diluted; no matter how conscientious the delegates may be, they must consider problems at the society macro level, and concerns of minor localities tend necessarily to be overlooked. And with no real obligation to represent constituencies, there is every incentive not to be conscientious at all, but to instead represent other interests, interests that provide greater benefit to the political career of the delegate. When centralism and factionalism are combined, as they are in leading Western nations, then functional democracy becomes all but impossible. With factions vying for power, wealthy interests busily buying influence, political power concentrated in a central governing body, and delegates free to support whatever policies they choose, it is little wonder that the will of the people plays little role in societal decision making and problem solving. One can hardly imagine a system better suited to the usurpation of power by an elite oligarchy. In the previous chapter, when focusing on societal feedback mechanisms, I argued that democracy must be locally based. Unless the solutions to local problems are agreed to locally, society lacks the feedback necessary to sustain democracy, to pass the citizens' test. In a functional democracy, we can assume that there must be some system of local governance which is inclusive of all local interests, employs a collaborative approach to problem solving, and which has considerable sovereignty over local affairs. Such local governance eliminates one of the characteristics of centralism: the making of most decisions on a society-wide basis. There are, however, many problems which cannot practically be dealt with locally. Transportation, communications, energy, allocation of scarce resources, trade policies, finances, and others, require society-wide problem solving, albeit with room for local variations in the implementation of solutions, and perhaps local approval of proposed solutions. After perhaps intermediate levels of government, there must be some kind of society-wide governing body that has responsibility for addressing society-wide problems. In a functional democracy, the problem-solving approach used by this central body must be aimed at harmonizing the wishes of the various localities, as represented by their delegations. The delegates do not come to the central body firmly committed to particular solutions, but rather with an informed understanding of the desires and requirements they are bringing to the discussion. If each delegate reliably represents their constituencies in the central deliberations, then the consensus solutions that are arrived at are likely to successfully harmonize the overall interests of society. But how to assure that delegates reliably represent their constituencies? In today's systems of democracy, delegates are selected, theoretically, on the basis of character, judgement, experience, integrity, intelligence, good sense, and other personality traits. When a candidate is elected, the presumption is that the electorate trusts him or her personally to do the right thing for the constituency. Needless to say, this system does not work very well. The problem is not that the wrong person might get elected in these systems, but rather that localities are focusing on delegate selection rather than on problem solving. In order for the locality to be represented properly in the central body, the locality must take the time to consider what position it wants taken to the central body for the important issues of the day. Without local deliberations on societal issues, the delegate lacks the information necessary to adequately represent the locality in central deliberations, regardless of how responsible and conscientious he or she might be. Even at the local level there are diverse interests, and no one person embodies the knowledge and needs of the whole community. Problem solving at the local level requires the participation of the whole community. Only by that means can the locality even become aware of what position it wants to be represented centrally. If the locality has no awareness of what it wants, as a community, then how could any elected official possibly be expected to represent its will? For this reason alone, it is no wonder that Western societies are not democracies. Local deliberation of society-wide issues is a necessary feedback mechanism in a functional democracy. The local governance system, then, is concerned with solving local problems itself, and with identifying its priorities regarding wider issues, as its contribution to society-wide governance. The role of a delegate in this system is clear: it is to take the local agenda to the central body and to represent it in the deliberations. It is not the judgement or character of the delegate which is of central importance -- although poor judgement or character would hardly be a recommendation -- but rather that the delegate can and will represent the local agenda, as articulated locally. In today's democracies, people represent localities, and society-wide policies are determined by the dynamics of centralism and factionalism; in a functional democracy, agendas represent localities, and society-wide agendas are harmonized from those through the collaboration of delegates. At the local level, a community agenda is harmonized from the interests of all; at the central level, a societal agenda is harmonized from the various local agendas, with the process possibly repeated at intermediate levels. This is the meaning of localism in the context of a functional democracy, and localism eliminates the counter-democratic characteristics of centralism. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [continued...]
Share: